Rajesh Chaudhary v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors

IN

1. CWP-312

Rajesh Chaudha

The Chandigarh

2. CWP-312

Arvinder Kaur

The Chandigarh

3. CWP-319

Vijay Kumar

The Chandigarh

4. CWP-321

Mahender Chan

The Chandigarh

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN

AT CHANDIG -.-

Re

Pro 27-2019 (O&M) ary

Vs.

h Administration and Others 29-2019 (O&M)

Vs.

h Administration and Others 96-2019 (O&M)

Vs.

h Administration and Others 18-2019 (O&M) neja

Vs.

h Administration and Others

NJAB & HARYANA GARH served on 29.08.2024 onounced on: 18.09.2024

......Petitioner

......Respondents

......Petitioner

......Respondents

......Petitioner

......Respondents

......Petitioner

......Respondents

5. CWP-322

Anju Bala

The Chandigarh

CORAM: HO

HO

Present: Mr

Mr wit for

Mr for

Mr Mr for

Mr Mr for (in

Mr for

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

Sin order dated 03.1 petitioners in a Chandigarh Ben one common jud 23-2019 (O&M)

Vs. h Administration and Others ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURE ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Rohit Seth, Advocate for the pe r. Aditya Jain Gupta, Addl. Stand th Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in CW r. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate the respondent-UT, Chandigarh r. Aman Pal, Advocate and r. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate the respondent-UT Chandigarh r. Ashish Rawal, Sr. Standing cou r. Deepak Malhotra, Advocate the respondent-U.T. Chandigarh CWP-3127-2019 & CWP-3223-r. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate respondent No.1 and 2 (in CWP

---- HARMA J. nce the challenge in all the abov

12.2018/10.01.2019, whereby th all the writ petitions before the nch, are dismissed, therefore, w dgment.

......Petitioner

......Respondents ESHWAR THAKUR EEPTI SHARMA etitioners(s). ding Counsel – UT Chandigarh WP-3129-2019) h (in CWP-3129-2019) (in CWP-3218-2019) unsel with h -2019) e P-3196-2019) ve-numbered writ petitions is to he original applications filed by e Central Administrative Tribun we decide all the writ petitions v

nal,

2.

As brevity, we tak application No Chaudhary Vs. under:-

i)

ii) Ho Act

iii) for Ho wer

iv) of

¶11wit Nu

v) Sup Go Ass

vi) pre app the facts of all the writ petitions ke the brief facts of the case .060/01044/2018 in CWP No The Chandigarh Administratio The petitioner was appointed He was General Secretary of spital Nurses Welfare Associat t, 1926 and recongnised at releva Several Staff Nurses reques discussions regarding provisio lidays to nursing staff and regar re not granted for about 20 years Several nurses were waiting Nursing Superintendent to asc

11.2016 as holiday. The petitio th Nursing Superintendent alon urses to ascertain the position. On 17.11.2016 a compla perintendent to Medical Superi vernment Medical College sociation. File notings dated 16.02.2 eliminary enquiry report was rep proval to accept the inquiry rep

s are same, therefore, for the sake as per the pleadings in origi o.3127 of 2019 titled as Raj on and Others. The same are d as Staff Nurse on 20.04.2007. f Government Medical College a tion, registered under Trade Un ant point of time. sted on 10.11.2016 through Un on of grant of benefit of Natio rding their promotions as the sa s. g before joining duty outside off certain about request of declar oner went for a scheduled meet ngwith 5 to 7 office bearers-cu aint was submitted by Nurs intendent against the President and Hospital Nurses Welf 2017 is the one in which produced and the file was put up port and allow to issue the char

e of inal esh e as

and nion nion onal ame fice ring ting um-sing t of fare for rge-

she Dir

vii) pen app Pun

¶25viii and and

ix) qua und

¶17Ser cha

x) doc

xi) 'J' cam

xii) app eet to the petitioner and others. rector Principal on 17.02.2017. ) On 21.02.2017, the propo nalty, charge-sheet was put up proved issuance of minor penal njab Civil Service (Punishmen

02.2017.

i) On 03.03.2017, two sets of d forwarded by Medical Superin d the same were found in order o On 16.03.2017, the proposal allegations against the petitio antum of punishment be chang der Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Servi

¶70The said proposal was app

03.2017 major penalty charge-s rvice (Punishment and Appeal) arges was issued to petitioner by On 27.03.2017 the petitio cuments relied upon in charge-sh On 27.04.2017, the responde and Noting Portion while st mera/footage. ) On 27.07.2017 the Enquiry O pointed. 4 out of 6 defence w

The said approval was granted osal for issuance of minor/ma before Director Principal and lty, charge-sheet under Rule 10 nt and Appeal) Rules, 1970 draft of charge-sheets were put ntendent for vetting by Law Offi on 09.03.2017. l was thereafter put up that since oner and others stood proved, ged from minor to major pena ce (Punishment and Appeal) Ru proved by Director Principal. sheet under Rule 8 of Punjab C Rules, 1970 along with article Director/Principal. oner denied charges and sou heet/by officers. ents supplied the documents at ' tating therein there is no CC Officer and Presenting Officer w witnesses declined to be examin

d by ajor he 0 of on t up icer e all alty ules, On Civil e of ught H', CTV were ned,

wh is a Ori far inc stat wo of t pow xiii pro eac stra Ser wa sho xiv Go thre

xv) Vid pen effe

¶30hich caused severe damage and p admitted in reply dated 22.10. iginal Application No.060/1044 as the matter of producing six d idence is concerned, all these wi tement of occurrence/non-occurr uld have been repetition of the s the enquiry proceedings for noth wer to curtail number of witnesse

i) 03.10.2017 is the enquiry oved. As per the petitioner enti ch allegation of charge. Ap aightway arrived in violation of rvice (Punishment and Appeal) R s supplied to seek comments/r ow cause notice of proposed pena

v) 08.11.2017 is the penalt vernment Medical College an ee grade increments with cumula ) On 27.11.2017 the appeal w de order dated 01.08.2018, the nalty from stoppage of three g fect to stoppage of one increm

08.2018, petitioner .060/01044/2018 in C

prejudice to the defence. This f .2018 filed by the respondents of 2018 by stating therein that defence witnesses in respect of sa itnesses would have made the sa rence of any incident and the sa same statement and wastage of ti hing. Thus the enquiry officer es to avoid repetition. report concluding charges to ire evidence was not analysed q ppraisals and conclusions w f Rule 8(23)(i) of the Punjab C Rules, 1970. Neither enquiry rep representation against finding alty was given to the petitioner. ty order by Director Princi nd Hospital, Chandigarh stopp ative effect. was filed to the Secretary Hea e appellate authority modified grade increments with cumulat ment with cumulative effect. filed original applicat entral Administrative Tribun

fact s in t so ame ame ame ime has be qua were Civil port nor

ipal ping alth. tive On tion nal,

Cha

3.

Aft record, the origi

3.12.2018/10.01

4. SU PE

i)

ii)

iii)

iv) andigarh Bench. ter hearing learned counsel for inal application filed by the petit

1.2019 by the Central Administra UBMISSIONS OF LEARN ETITIONER:- Learned counsel for the pe sheet under Rule 8 of Punj Appeal) Rules, 1970 n application of mind by di Principal, therefore, vitiated. He further contends that den violates Rule 8 (17) Punja Appeal), Rules 1970. Learned Tribunal did not a justice was violated and obs was for enquiry officer to de DWs were to prove no m Superintendent against the office, no misconduct relatin since the petitioner went recognised union body. He further contends that enq officer has not analysed/ex against each allegation of ch

the parties and going through tioner is dismissed vide order da ative Tribunal, Chandigarh Benc NED COUNSEL FOR TH etitioner contends that the char ab Civil Service (Punishment a not conceptualised/prepared isciplinary authority i.e. Direc

nial of 4 out of 6 defence witnes ab Civil Service (Punishment a appreciate that principle of natu erved in the impugned order tha ecide and no prejudice was caus man-handling, pushing of Nurs wall, no breaking of sanctity ng to duties as government serv in capacity of office bearer quiry report is illegal since enqu xamined evidence led in enqu harge to reach a conclusion agai

ated ch. HE rge-and on ctor sses and ural at it sed. sing y of vant of uiry uiry

v)

vi)

vii) viii

ix)

x) each alleged violation. He further contends that enq petitioner. Further that no show cause given. ) He further contends that l judgment titled as 'Uttarak Sukhveer Singh' wherein show cause notice of penalty report was supplied to the pe

i) Further that learned Tribuna supply of enquiry report is n the very fact that the charg major penalty. Therefore, th are perverse on the face of favour of the petitioner w evidence cannot be picked to He further contends that discriminatory as out of 30 gathered outside and insid leaders who were holding r and proceeded. Therefore, he prays that the p

quiry report was not supplied to e notice of proposed penalty w learned Tribunal relied upon khand Transport Corporation enquiry report was supplied w y and in the present case no enqu etitioner. al observed that for minor pena not required but did not appreci ge-sheet and penalty order was he findings of the learned Tribu record. The material evidence was not considered and select o suit the prosecution. t action of the respondents 0-40 employees who had allege de Nursing Office, only 6 un responsible positions were targe present petition be allowed.

was Vs. with uiry alty iate for unal e in tive is edly nion

5. SU RE

i)

ii)

iii)

iv) UBMISSIONS OF LEARN ESPONDENTS

Per contra, learned counsel the plea of the petitioner th initially Director Principa observed for issuance of ch thereafter, on suggestio Administration (ADA), dire major penalty is misconceiv that it is settled position in decision making process and an order unless the same person(s). He further contends that adm sheet for minor penalty was Thus there is no merit in ple sheet for major penalty has by the ADA. He further contends that se rules of evidence are not app proceedings/disciplinary proc He further contends that so non-serving of show cause n before awarding the punis position of law is that t

NED COUNSEL FOR TH l for the respondents contends t hat the 'official noting' shows t al (i.e. Disciplinary Author arge-sheet for a minor penalty on by Additional Direc ected issuance of charge-sheet ved and unfounded for the reas law that 'official noting' is part d such noting does not fructify i is communicated to the affec mittedly in the present case char never served upon the petition ea of the petitioner that the char been served after suggestion giv ettled position in law is that st plicable to the departmental enqu ceedings. far as plea of the petitioners q notice and/or copy of enquiry rep shment is concerned, the sett the delinquent employee has

HE that that rity) but tor, for ons t of into cted rge-ers. rge-ven trict uiry qua port tled

v)

vi)

6.

We record. ANALYSIS OF

7.

A memorandum/ch Government Me 8 of the Punja documents whi Annexures 'I' & reply the petitio them. Those w

17.11.2016, wh Prem Lata, O Superintendent in number gath show/demonstrate as to wha non serving of show cause no He further contends that s reduced the punishment impo "stoppage of three grade inc "one increment with cumula merit in the plea of the petiti speaking. He, therefore, prays that the p e have heard learned counsel for F THE RECORD perusal of the record show harge-sheet dated 17.03.2017 edical College and Hospital for h ab Civil Service (Punishment ich were mentioned in the & 'J' were not attached with the oners demanded the document were taken by the petitioners th hich is one of the documents al Officiating Nursing Superin of Hospital alleging that on 11. hered and entered in the offic

at prejudice has been caused due otice or enquiry report. since the appellate authority osed upon delinquent officials fr crements with cumulative effect" ative effect", therefore, there is ioner by saying that orders are n present writ petition be dismisse r the parties and perused the wh ws that the petitioners receiv issued by the Director Princi holding regular enquiry under R and Appeal) Rule, 1970. T charge-sheet i.e. complaint ' e charge-sheet. In order to file s, but those were not supplied hrough RTI. The complaint da lleged to have been made by M ntendent addressed to Medi .11.2016 the nursing staff of 40 ce of Nursing Superintendent a

e to has rom " to non-ed. hole ved ipal Rule The H', d to ated Ms. ical 0-50

disturbed the wo the statement of he stated that h Superintendent untoward incide

8.

Fac Professor Pharm petitioners. The the fact finding employees of nu Service (Punish subsequently on major penalty u Rules, 1970 aga

9.

The documents. Sh hold an inquiry of the Punjab Ci

10.

Col and all of them even otherwise for major penal pushed the ANS was there in the orking. The other document wh f President Vijay Kumar, GMCH he alongwith other staff memb and they politely talked to the c ent and they came back after 5 to ct finding enquiry was conducte macology, GMCH, Sector 32 e petitioners were never associa g enquiry it was suggested aga ursing staff that a charge-sheet hment & Appeal), Rules 1970 n the advice of ADA, the charge under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civ ainst the petitioners. e petitioners filed reply to the h. H.R.Ganger, IAS (Retired) w against the petitioners for impos ivil Service (Punishment & App llectively, the statements of pro denied the charges that any emp also the charges were inflated w lty. The charge No.1 was that S to the wall. This allegation w evidence.

ich was supplied as Annexure 'J H, Sector 32, Chandigarh, wher ers went to the office of Nurs concerned official and there was o 10 minutes. ed by appointing Sh. C.S.Gauta 2-Chandigarh at the back of ated in the fact finding enquiry. ainst the petitioners and five ot under Rule 10 of the Punjab C for minor penalty be issued. B e-sheet was ordered to be issued vil Service (Punishment & Appe e charge-sheet after receipt of was appointed as Inquiry Officer sition of major penalty under Rul eal) Rules, 1970. osecution witnesses were record ployee pushed ANS to the wall a with the purpose to hold an inqu the applicant and other employ was not there in the complaint no

J' is rein sing s no am, In ther Civil But for eal) r to le 8 ded and uiry yees

11.

The (petitioners in o However, the En to examine two two witnesses e written defence.

12.

Res and Hospital), charge-sheet or a major punishm The petitioners challenging the punishment from stoppage of one

13.

For Rule 8 of the Pu

"Pr

(1)

(2) e petitioner alongwith other em other writ petitions) wanted to nquiry Officer/Presenting Office o witnesses. The Enquiry Offic examined by the defence direc . spondent No.2 (Director Princi being a disciplinary authority show cause notice, vide impugn ment for stoppage of three grade filed an appeal before the Se order dated 08.11.2017. The m stoppage of three grade incr increment with cumulative effec r proper adjudication of this case unjab Civil Service (Punishment rocedure For Imposing Major P No order imposing any of the p

(ix) of rule 5 shall be made exc may be in the manner provided manner provided by the Public of 1850), where such inquiry is h Whenever the punishing author grounds for inquiring into

mployees who were charge-shee examine about 6 to 10 witness er (PO) allowed the petitioners o cer/Presenting Officer after gett cted the petitioners to submit th ipal, Government Medical Coll without supplying a copy of ned order dated 08.11.2017 impo increments with cumulative eff ecretary, U.T. Health, Chandiga e Appellate Authority reduced rements with cumulative effect ct vide order dated 01.08.2018. e, it would be relevant to reprod and Appeal Rules), 1970:- Penalties :- penalties specified in clauses (v) cept after an inquiry held, as far d in this rule and rule 9 or in Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 held under that Act. rity is of the opinion that there the truth of any imputation

eted ses. only ting heir ege sed fect. arh, t to duce ) to r as (37 are

p

(3)

(4) misconduct or misbehaviour ag may itself inquire into, or app provisions of the Public Servant may be, an authority or any reti thereof. Explanation:- Where the pun inquiry, any reference in sub-ru to the inquiring authority shall Punishing authority. Where it is proposed to hold employee under this rule and ru draw up or cause to be drawn up

(i) The substance of the misbehaviour into definite

(ii) A statement of imputation support of each article of

(a) a statement of all rele or confession made by

(b) a list of documents by whom, the articles sustained. The punishing authority shall the Government employee a c statement of the imputations of a list of documents and witness

gainst a Government employee point under this rule or under ts (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the c ired officer to inquire into the tr nishing authority itself holds ules (7) to (20) and in sub-rule ( be construed as a reference to an inquiry against a Governm ule 9, the punishing authority sh p; e imputation of misconduct e and distinct articles of charges ns of misconduct or misbehaviou f charge, which shall contain :- evant facts including any admiss y the Government employee; y which and a list of witnesses of charge are proposed to l deliver or cause to be delivered copy of the articles of charge, f misconduct or misbehaviour a ses by which each article of cha

e, it case ruth

(22) ment hall or s; r in sion s by be d to and

is proposed to be sustained a employee to submit, within su written statement of his defenc to be heard in person. (4-A) If on receipt of written s authority is of the opinion tha clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 5 shou Employee and for that reason consider it necessary to inquir imposing any of the penalties sp 5, it shall after following the pr an order imposing any of the pe of rule 5.

(5)(a) Subject to the provisions written statement of defence, t inquire into such of the articles it considers it necessary so to inquiring authority for the purp charge have been admitted by written statement of defence, th its finding on each charger aft think fit and shall act in the man

(b) If no written statement Government employee, the pun

nd shall require the Governm uch time as may be specified ce and to state whether he desi tatement of defence, the punish at any of the penalties specified uld be imposed on the Governm the punishing authority does re into the articles of charges pecified in clause (v) to (ix) of r rocedure specified in rule 10, m enalties specified in clause (i) to of sub rule (4-A), on receipt of the punishing authority may its of charge as are not admitted or do, appoint under sub-rule (2) pose, and where all the articles y the government employee in he Punishing authority shall rec fter taking such evidence as it m nner laid down in rule 9. of defence is submitted by nishing authority may itself inqu

ment d, a ires hing d in ment not s of rule ake

(iv) f the tself r, if 2)an s of his ord may

into the articles of charge or ma so, appoint under sub-rule (2), i

(c) Where the punishing authori charge or appoints an inquirin into such charge, it may, by employee or a legal practitione Officer' to present on its behalf of charge.

(6) The punishing authority sh authority, forward to the inquiri

(i) a copy of the articles of imputations of misconduct or mi

(ii) a copy of the written statem the Government employee;

(iii) a copy of the statement of w rule (3);

(iv) evidence providing the del delivered to the Government emp

(v) a copy of the order appointin

(7) The Government employee inquiring authority on such d working days from the date of charge and the statement of the inquiring authority may allow.

ay, if it considers it necessary to inquiring authority for the purpo ity itself inquiries into any article ng authority for holding an inqu an order appoint a Governm er, to be known as the 'Present f the case in support of the artic hall, where it is not the inquir ing authority:- charge and the statement of isbehaviour. ment of defence, if any submitted witnesses, if any, referred to in s livery of documents required to mployee under sub rule (4). ng the "Presenting Officer". e shall appear in person before day and at such time within f receipt by him of the articles e imputations of misconduct as

o do ose. e of uiry ment ting cles ring d by sub-o by ten

p p p p f p p

(8) The Government employee m Government employee or a present the case on his beha practitioner for the purpose appointed by the punishing auth punishing authority having reg case, so permits.

(9) If the Government employee articles of charge in his writte submitted any written statement inquiring authority, such autho guilty or has any defence to ma the articles of the charges, the i plea, sign the record and obtain employee thereon.

(10) The inquiring authority s respect of those articles of c employee pleads guilty.

(11) The inquiring authority s fails to appear within the spec plead, require the Presiding O which he proposes to prove adjourn the case to a later da recording an order that the G purpose of preparing his defenc

may take the assistance of any ot retired Government employee alf, but may not engage a le e unless the Presenting Offi hority is a legal practitioner, or gards to the circumstances of e who has not admitted any of en statement of defence or has t of the defence, appears before ority shall ask him whether he ake and if he pleads guilty to any inquiring authority shall record n the signatures of the governm shall return a finding of guilt charge to which the Governm shall if the Government employ cified time or refuses or omits Officer to produce the evidence the articles of charge, and sh ate not exceeding thirty days af Government employee may, for ce –

ther to egal ficer not e is y of ment t in ment oyee s to e by hall

f

(i) inspect within five days of the exceeding five days as the in documents, specified in the list r (ii )submit a list of witnesses to b

(iii) apply orally or in writing statements, if any recorded, of referred to in sub-rule (3), in w shall furnish to him such copie case not later than three days examination of the witnesses on and

(iv) give a notice within ten d further time not exceeding ten d allow for the discovery or prod the possession of Governmen referred to in sub-rule (3) and th indicate the relevance of the d discovered or produced by the G

(12) The Inquiring Authority sh discovery or production of docu thereof to the authority in w documents are kept, with a req document by such date as may b

e order within such further time nquiring authority may allow, referred to in sub-rule (3); and be examined on his behalf; g for the supply of copies of of witnesses mentioned in the which case the inquiring autho es as early as possible and in a s before the commencement of n behalf of the punishing author days of the order or within su days, as the inquiring authority m duction of any document which is nt, but not mentioned in the he Government employee shall a documents required by him to Government. hall, on receipt of the notice for uments, forward the same or cop whose custody or possession quisition for the production of be specified in such requisition.

not list rity any rity, uch may s in list also be

Provided that the inquiring a recorded by it in writing, re documents as are in its opinion

(13) On receipt of the requis every authority having the requisitioned documents shall inquiring authority; Provided that if the authority h the requisitioned documents is s by it in writing that the product would be against the public inte inform the inquiring authority authority shall on being so infor to the Government employee an it for the production or discover

(14) On the date fixed for the evidence by which the articles of shall be produced by or on beh witnesses shall be examined b Officer and may be cross-ex Government employee. The Pre re-examine the witnesses on an cross-examined, but not on any the inquiring authority. The inq questions to the witnesses as it t

authority may, for reasons to efuse to requisition such of not relevant to the case. sition referred to in sub-rule (1 custody or possession of l produce the same before having the custody or possession satisfied for reasons to be record ion of all or any of such docume erest or security of the State, it sh ty accordingly and the inquir rmed, communicate the informat d withdraw the requisition made ry of such documents. inquiry, the oral and document of charge are proposed to be pro half of the punishing authority. T by or on behalf of the Presid xamined by or on behalf of esenting Officer shall be entitled ny points on which they have b y new matter, without the leave quiring authority may also put su thinks fit.

be 12), n of ded ents hall ring tion e by tary ved The ding d to een e of

p

(15) If it shall appear necessar behalf of the punishing authori its discretion, allow the Present included in the list given to the call new evidence or recall and such case the Government empl demands it, a copy of the list o produced and an adjournment before the production of such ne of adjournment and the day to w inquiring authority shall give which the inquiry is adjourned. the Government employee an documents before they are tak authority may also allow the new evidence if it is of the Op evidence is necessary in the inte Provided that new evidence sha any witness shall not be recalled Such evidence may be called f lacuna or defect in the evid originally.

(16) When the case for the p Government employee shall be or in writing as he may prefer. If

ry before the close of the case ity, the inquiring authority may ting Officer to produce evidence Government employee or may its d re-examine any witnesses and loyee shall be entitled to have, if of further evidence proposed to of the inquiry for three clear d ew evidence, exclusively of the d which the inquiry is adjourned. T the Government and the day The inquiring authority shall g n opportunity of inspecting su ken on the record. The inquir Government employee to prod pinion that the production of su erest of justice. all not be permitted or called for d to fill up any gap in the eviden for only when there is an inher dence which has been produ punishing authority is closed, required to state his defence ora If the defence is made orally it sh

on , in not tself d in f he o be days date The y to give uch ring duce uch r or nce. rent ced ally

p p p be recorded and the Governme the Government employee shall either case, a copy the stateme Presenting Officer, if any, appoi

(17) The evidence on behalf of then be produced. The Gove himself on his own behalf, if h after the conclusion of examin him. The witnesses produced b then be examined and shall be examination and examinatio according to the provisions ap punishing authority.

(18) The inquiring autho employee closes his case, and s has not examined himself, circumstances, appearing aga purpose of enabling the Gove circumstances appearing in the

(19) The inquiring authority production of evidence, hear appointed, and the Governmen written briefs of their respective

(20) If the Government employe charge has been delivered, doe

ent employee shall be recorded a l be required to sign the record ent of defence shall be given to inted. of the Government employee sh ernment employee may exam he so prefers either at the outset ation of the witnesses produced by the Government employee sh e liable to cross-examination, on by the inquiring autho pplicable to the witnesses for ority may, after the Governm shall, if the Government employ generally question him on ainst him in the evidence for ernment employee to explain a e evidence against him. may, after the completion of r the Presenting Officer, if a nt employee or permit them to f e cases, if they so desire. ee to whom a copy of the articles es not submit the written statem

and d. In hall mine t or d by hall re-rity ment oyee any any, file s of

f p of defence on or before the date not appear in person before th fails or refuses to comply wit inquiring authority may hold the

(21) (a) Where a punishing aut the penalties specified in clau competent to impose any of the p

(ix) of rule 5 has itself inquired the articles of any charge and t decision on any of the find appointed by it, is of the opin clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 5 shou employee, that authority shall fo such punishing authority as mentioned penalties.

(b)The punishing authority to w may act on the evidence on the r that further examination of any interest of justice recall the wit the witnesses and may impose penalty as it may deed fit in acco

(22) Whenever any inquiring a recorded the whole or any part to exercise jurisdiction therei inquiring authority which h

e specified for the purpose or d he inquiring authority or otherw th the provisions of this rule, e inquiry ex-parte. thority competent to impose any uses (i) to (iv) of rule 5 but penalties specified in clauses (v) d into or caused to be inquired i that authority, having regard to dings of any inquiring autho nion that the penalties specified uld be imposed on the Governm orward the records of the inquiry is competent to impose the l which the records are so forward record or may, if it is of the opin of the witnesses is necessary in tness and examine and re-exam on the Government employee su ordance with these rules. authority, after having heard a of the evidence in an inquiry, ca in, and is succeeded by anot has and which exercises, su

does wise y of not

v) to into o its rity d in ment y to last ded nion mine uch and ases ther

j p p p p f jurisdiction, the inquiring autho evidence so recorded by its pred predecessor and partly recorded provided that if the succeeding i that further examination of any has already been recorded is ne may recall, examine, cross ex witnesses as hereinbefore provid

(23) (i) After the conclusion prepared and it shall contain:-

(a) the articles of charge and t misconduct or misbehaviour.

(b) the defence of the Governm article of charge;

(c) an assessment of the evide charge;

(d) the findings on each art therefore. Explanation:--If in the opinio proceedings of the inquiry different from the original artic findings on such article of char Provided that the findings on s recorded unless the Governme the facts on which such article

ority so succeeding may act on decessor, or parity recorded by d by itself; inquiring authority is of the opin y of the witnesses whose evide ecessary in the interests of justice xamine and re-examine any su ded. of the inquiry, a report shall the statement of the imputation ment employee in respect of ea ence in respect of each article ticle of charge and the reaso on of the inquiring authority establish any article of cha cle of the charge, it may record rge: such article of charge shall not ent employee has either admit e of charge is based or has ha

his nion nce e, it uch l be n of ach e of ons arge d its t be tted

14.

The dated 01.08.201

(CAT) on 10.01 under:- "9. exa cou

¶10veh reasonable opportunity of defe of charge.

(ii) The inquiring authority w authority shall forward to the p inquiry which shall include-

(a) the report prepared by it un

(b) the written statement of d Government employee;

(c) the oral and documentary e the inquiry,

(d) written briefs, if any, filed Government employee or both and

(e) the orders, if any, made by inquiring authority in regard to e original application filed by 18 was dismissed by the learne .2019. The relevant portion of th

We have heard the learned c amined the material on file wi unsel for the parties.

To begin with, learned se hemently urged that the punis

nding himself against such arti where it is not itself the punish punishing authority the records der clause (i); defence, if any, submitted by evidence produced in the course d by the Presenting Officer, or during the course of the inqui y the punishing authority and o the inquiry. the petitioners challenging or ed Central Administrative Tribu he impugned order is reproduced counsel for the parties at length a ith the able assistance of learn enior counsel for the applica shment order is dated 8.8.20

icle ing s of e of iry; rder unal d as and ned ants 017,

whe tha app lea on was are resp any

¶11arg wit prej sub are one to b pla hav

¶12veh app this ereas the inquiry was completed at the order had already been plicants would be held guilty an e effect of vitiating the inquiry. H rned counsel for the respondent the part of the department in pu s passed subsequently after Inq e convinced of this fact and do n pondents as it was only a cleri y valid ground to the applicants e same.

The learned senior counse gued that the respondents cou tnesses to be produced by them i ejudiced their defence. The plea bstance as it is for the IO to de e to be allowed to prove a fact p e particular fact as to whether m be proved and witnesses had sta ace. Thus, non production of fur ve prejudiced the case of the app

The learned senior counsel f hemence, that the copy of inquir plicants and show cause notice s flaw in decision making pro

d only on 3.10.2017, thus, it sho prepared in anticipation that nd punished accordingly, which However, this plea was resisted ts with record that it was a mist utting date of 8.8.2017 as in fac quiry report was submitted and not find any reason to disbelieve ical error, which would not aff to claim any benefit on the basis el for the applicants vehemen uld not have curtailed number in support of their defence as it a to our mind, does not have a etermine as to how many witnes particularly in this case where o manhandling had taken place, w ated that no manhandling had ta rther witnesses does not appear plicants, in any manner. for the applicants argued and w ry report was to be supplied to also before Imposing penalty a ocess has caused prejudice to

ows has d by take ct it we ford s of ntly r of has any sses only was ken r to with

app not not app pen Ho TR on Inq pro ple sup cou enq wri prej felt by sho not poi rule for not plicants. No doubt, the admitted t supplied with inquiry report o t appear to have caused any prej pellate authority has considered nalty imposed by the disciplin n'ble Apex Court in C.A. No RANSPORT CORPORATION V

10.11.2017 (Annexure R-1), h quiry report does not automa oceedings. It is incumbent upo ead and prove that he suffered a pply of the Inquiry report. On urt held no prejudice was caused quiry report. The High Court co it petition filed by the Responde ejudice was caused to the delinq e inquiry officer's report along t satisfied that no prejudice was the non supply of the report of ow cause notice. Hence, no us tice. Her be served by a remand int of prejudice. The case in ha e position relied upon by the res minor penalties, report of inqu t required to be provided to the c

position is that the applicants w r show cause notice, but that d judice to the applicants. Rather, their pleas and has toned down nary authority. In any case, No. 18558/2017 UTTARAKHAN VS. SUKHVEER SINGH, decid has that mere non-supply of atically warrant quashing of on on the delinquent employee a serious prejudice due to the n examining facts in that case, d to the employee by non supply ommitted an error in allowing ent without examining whether a uent employee by the non supply with the show cause notice. Co caused to the delinquent emplo f the inquiry officer along with seful purpose will the show ca d to the court below to examine and is on better footing in view spondents, which does provide t uiry officer or show cause notice concerned delinquent employee.

were does ND ded e to non-y of any y of ourt oyee ause w of that

¶13som wit mis oth san

¶11Kum from app or SU evid

The learned senior counse me amount of vehemence, that i tnesses have openly deposed shandling on the part of the app her side with equal vehemence. nctity of the office was broken

11.2016 which has even been a mar. That being the factual pos m any angle, that it was a c preciation or re-appreciation of Tribunal. In the case of STA UBARAMANIAM [(1996) 7 SC e scope of the power of judicial r dence and concluded as under:- "The Tribunal appreciated th according to it the evidence and held that the appellant respondent had de gratification. The Tribunal evidence of the complainan above charges. On that ba removal. Thus this appeal b is: whether the Tribunal appreciate the evidence and charge has not been proved

el for the applicants argued, w it is a case of no evidence, as d that they had not seen a plicants, which has been resisted In fact it has come on record t n by the President and others accepted by the President Mr. Vi sition on record, one cannot cla ase of no evidence. In any ca evidence is not the job of the cou ATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. CC 509], the court has conside review vis-à-vis re-appreciation he evidence of the complainant a of the complainant was discrep had not satisfactorily proved t emanded and accepted ille l trenched upon appreciation nt, did not rely on it to prove asis, it set aside the order of by special leave. The only quest was right in its conclusion d to reach its own finding that d. The Tribunal is not a court

with any d by that on Vijay aim ase, urts S. ered n of and pant that egal of tion to

appeal. The power of judici Article 226 of the constitutio power under Article 323A Tribunal by Central Admini law that the Tribunal has on administrative action of the a service conditions of employ the disciplinary authority to and to record findings wheth not. It is equally settled law no application for the d authority is to consider the review, it is settled law that power to trench on the juris and to arrive at its own con appeal from a decision but a decision is made. It is mea receives fair treatment and which the authority reaches the court or tribunal. Whe authority is based on eviden re-appreciate the evidence conclusion on the proof of t the Court/Tribunal has in whether the conclusion is b

al review of the High Court un on of India was taken away by A and invested the same on istrative Tribunal Act. It is sett nly power of judicial review of appellant on complaints relating yees. It is the exclusive domain o consider the evidence on rec her the charge has been proved that technical rules of evidence disciplinary proceedings and e material on record. In judic t the Court or the Tribunal has sdiction to appreciate the evide nclusion. Judicial review is not a review of the manner in which ant to ensure that the delinqu not to ensure that the conclus is necessarily correct in the view en the conclusion reached by nce, Tribunal is devoid of power e and would come to its o the charge. The only considerat its judicial review is to consi based on evidence on record a

nder tled f the g to n of ord d or has cial nce t an uent sion w of r to own tion ider

¶14jud SAM VS. Hig for is s one cor cha said law

¶15dev

15.

We Tribunal while how many witn particularly in th taken place, wa taken place. Fu witnesses does manner. supports the finding or whet evidence." Not only that, the Hon'ble dgments in the case of ST MARENDRA KISHORE END S. UPENDRA SINGH (1994 2 gh Court or Tribunal has no pow that of the disciplinary authorit similar to the powers of the High e of judicial review. The Tribu rrectness or truth of the charge arges framed, or misconduct or d to have been made out or the c w.

In view of the above discu void of any merit and are dism eir own costs." e are not convinced with the holding that it is for the Invest nesses are to be allowed to be ex his case where only particular fa as to be proved and witnesses h urther, learned Tribunal held th not appear to have caused any

ther the conclusion is based on Supreme Court of India In TATE BANK OF INDIA DOW [1994 (1) SLR 516) and U 7 ATR 200) has reiterated tha wer to substitute its own discret ty. The Jurisdiction of the Tribu h Court under Article 226, which unal has no jurisdiction to go i es and can interfere only if, on r other irregularity alleged can charges framed are contrary to a ussion, these O.As turn out to missed, leaving the parties to b reasoning given by the learn tigating Officer to determine as xamined to prove a particular f act as to whether man-handling h had stated that no manhandling h hat thus, non-production of furt prejudice to the petitioners in a

Its VS. UOI at a tion unal h is into n be any be bear ned s to fact, had had ther

16.

The a copy of show penalty which c caused any prej authority had co the petitioners b

17.

Lea the case of U No.18558/2017, penalty and in without followin Appeal Rules.

18.

Lea Apex Court in th 509], in which th

19.

Lea Court in the cas

(1) SLR 516], th review.

20.

Lea petitioners only correctness or tr or misconduct o the charges fram e reasoning given by the learned w cause notice and a copy of en caused prejudice to the petitioner judice to the petitioners. It fur onsidered their pleas and has ton by the disciplinary authority. arned Tribunal relied upon the ju Uttarakhand Transport Corpor , decided on 10.11.2017], which the present case major penalty ng the procedure as laid down u arned Tribunal has further relie he case of State of Tamil Nadu he power to judicial review by th arned Tribunal has further relied se of State Bank of India Vs. S his is again the case of power of arned Tribunal dismissed the on the ground that the Tribuna ruth of the charges and can inter or other irregularity alleged can med are contrary to any law.

d Tribunal with respect to supply nquiry report before imposing a rs is that it does not appear to h rther held that rather the appell ned down the penalty imposed up udgment of Hon'ble Apex Cour ration Vs. Sukhveer Singh [C h is the case of imposition of mi y is imposed upon the petition under Rule 8 of the Punishment a ed upon the judgment of Hon' Vs. Subaramaniam [(1996) 7 S he Courts has been discussed. d upon a judgment of Hon'ble Ap Samarendra Kishore Endow [19 f Courts with respect to the judic original application filed by al has no jurisdiction to go into rfere only if on the charges fram n be said to have been made out

y of any have late pon rt in C.A inor ners and 'ble SCC pex cial med,

21.

Lea ignored the proc the Punjab Civil specifically stat imposing the ma

22.

A p and Appeal) Ru be prepared and

The authority the pro from the origina charge, but there shall not be reco on which such defending himse the procedure as and Appeal) Ru arned Tribunal while deciding t cedure to be followed for impos l Service (Punishment and Appe ted that the principles of natura ajor penalty as reproduced above perusal of Rule 8(23) (i) of the P ules, 1970, shows that after the c d it shall contain:-

(a) the articles of charge and t misconduct or misbehaviour.

(b) the defence of the Governm article of charge;

(c) an assessment of the evide charge;

(d) the findings on each article o ere is further an explanation tha oceedings of the inquiry establis al article of the charge, it may re e is a proviso to the same that th orded unless the government emp article of charge is based or ha elf against such article of charge s laid down under Rule 8 of the les, 1970 for imposing major pen

the original application has tota sing major penalty under Rule 8 eal) Rules, 1970 wherein it has b al justice are to be followed bef e. Punjab Civil Service (Punishm conclusion of inquiry, a report sh the statement of the imputation ment employee in respect of e ence in respect of each article of charge and the reasons therefo at if in the opinion of the inquir shed any article of charge differ ecord its findings on such article he findings on such article of cha mployee has either admitted the fa as had a reasonable opportunity e. Whereas in the present petiti e Punjab Civil Service (Punishm nalty has not been followed.

ally 8 of een fore ment hall n of ach e of ore. ring rent e of arge acts y of ons

23.

Ho 1973(1) SCC 68 "9. obs prin circ A.C req ado of und Du Go Kn obs Ren foll an n'ble Supreme Court in Shadi 80, held as under:-

The rules of natural justic served in any proceedings even nciples of natural justice to be cumstances of each case. In Su C.120. this Court pointed ou quirements of natural justice h opted must depend to a great ex the case in point, the constitut der which it functions. After refe uke of Norfolk & Ors., (1949 vernment Board v. Alridge, (19 aggs & Anr., [1918] A.C. 55 servations of Lord Harman, J. in nters Society Ltd., [1958] Al lowing effect : "What, then, are the requirem this kind ? First, I think tha the nature of the accusation given an opportunity to stat that the tribunal should act there really is anything more nd went on to Jay down the same

i Lal Gupta Vs. State of Punj ce would undoubtedly have to n by a domestic tribunal. But e applied would depend upon uresh v. Kerala University, (19 t that the question whether have been met by the proced tent on the facts and circumstan tion of the Tribunal and the ru ferring to the decisions in Russe 9)1 All F.R. 108 at 119. Lo 969)1 S.C.R. 317 and De Verteui 7 this Court also referred to n Byrne & Anr. v. Kinematogra ll England Reporter 579 to ments of natural justice in a case at the person accused should kn n made; secondly that he should te his case; and thirdly, of cour t in good faith. I do not think t e." principle in its own words :

jab, be 915) dure nces ules el v. ocal il v. aph e of now d be rse,

¶10pun "Suffice it to say that in th inquiry against the appellan case before us there was a f the officer appointed to inq cannot be said to have been charge against the appellant commencement of the inquiry against him were examined i to cross-examine them a opportunity to present his Hence we see no merit in breach of the principles of Vice-Chancellor did not mak of the report submitted by t appellant did not ask for a c requiring the Vice-Chancello copy of the report of the Inq upon to make his repres decision taken by him. If t making his representation w Inquiry Officer, he, could ha that report. His present g thought and we see no substa As we have indicated earlier, if nishment after he had given a h

he case before us there was a f nt; the Suffice it to say that in fair inquiry against the appella quire was an impartial person; n biased against the appellant; t was made known to him before ry; the witnesses who gave evide in his presence and he was allow and lastly he was given ev case before the Inquiry Offic the contention that there was a natural justice. It is true that ke available to the appellant a co the Inquiry Officer. Admittedly copy of the report. There is no r or to, provide the appellant wit quiry Officer before he was cal sentation against the provisio the appellant felt any difficulty ithout looking into the report of ave, very well asked for a copy grievance appears to be an af ance in it." f Shri Banwari Lal had imposed hearing to the appellant, the or

fair ant; he nce wed very cer. any opy rule th a lled onal y in f the y of fter

wou any ind us hav sho prin had rep Lal rep rec of t car tha evid opi Tre ord Tre in t cop extr add uld have been perfectly legal an y principle of natural justice dicated above would have been in this case is that as the report ve already referred to earlier, w owing, it to the appellant he has nciples of natural justice have b d an opportunity of making his port. We find no substance in th l wanted a local enquiry to be presentations made by the app cords and that is what has been d the allegations on the basis of wh e petitioner, and the report of refully one through it and it doe an what is already found in the dence in support of these alleg inion that the appellant has not easury Officer's report being ta der of punishment was passed a easury Officer had sent his repo the enquiry he held it would not py of the report he sent. If the r raneous to the charges again dition to what is found in the or

nd it could not have been said t had been violated. The crite satisfied. But what is urged bef t of the Treasure Officer, which as taken into consideration with s been seriously prejudiced and been violated in so far as he has s representation in respect of t his contention. When Shri Banw e made he apparently wanted pellant to be checked up with done as is clear from a comparis hich the chargesheet was served f the Treasury Officer. We h es not add one single instance m allegations. It merely sets out gations. We are, therefore, of been in any way prejudiced by aken into consideration before against the petitioner. If before ort he had 'associated the appell t have been necessary to give him report had contained any mater nst the appellant, or anything riginal allegations against him th

that eria fore we hout not that wari son d on ave more lant m a rial g in

only Jud Ker pre pla ma was rep app obs to a it h cas cou nat jus circ Cou "Th evid Con art ly he could be said to have been dicial Committee in B. Surinde e Federation of Malaya, [1962 rala University (Supra) a report eliminary inquiry, which was hig aced in the hands of the officer w de available to Kanda. That rep e Inquiry Officer and the Judicia s not fair. There is no question in port having prejudiced the punish plication of the principles of na servance of a formula or a mere assure that the party concerned e principle of audi alteram parta has been violated will depend on se. It is not to be considered th urts are observed it would mean tural justice. We are of the opi tice have been violated in this cumstances of this case to refer urt in Suresh's case to the effect here seems to be an erroneou dently influenced by the pr nstitution particularly as they s icle that every disciplinary p

n prejudiced. In the decision of er Singh Kanda v. Government 2] A.C. 332 noticed in Suresh t made by the Board, which held ghly prejudicial to Kanda had b who held the formal enquiry was eport was likely to have prejudi al Committee held that the enqu n this case of the Treasury Office hing officer, Mr. D.D. Sharma. T atural justice is not a question e technicality. In essence it is me has an opportunity of being hea am. Whether in any particular c the facts and circumstances of t hat unless all the procedure of failure to observe the principles inion that no principles of natu s case. We think it useful in r to the observations made by : us impression in certain quart ovisions in Article 311 of tood before the amendment of t proceeding must consist of

f the t of h v. een not ced uiry er's The n of eant ard, case that s of ural this ters that

inq ano prin cou doe sho pro

24.

A F Haryana [2002( "24 cou cha pen cha she wil stil of sta con hav

¶8pro quiries, one before issuing the sh other inquiry thereafter. Such nciples of natural justice. Law urse. Even if a show cause noti es not follow that a copy of the ow cause notice is issued should oceeded against or that another i Full Bench of this Court in the c

(2) SCT 915], held as under:-

¶4We may also examine the con unsel for the petitioner from a arge-sheet is issued under Rule nalty, if the disciplinary authori arge-sheet, finds that there is eeted employee, and therefore, af ll not be in a position to punish ll, for its own reasons wants to em the disciplinary authority wil dropping the procedure contem te that the explanation of the c nsidered, and impose a minor pu ving two different sets of procedu The object of prescribing the oceedings is to protect the charg

how cause notice to be followed h is not the requirement of may or may not prescribe suc ice is provided by law from tha e report on the basis of which d be made available to the pers inquiry should be, held thereafte case of Dr. K.G.Tiwari Vs. State tentions put forward by the learn another angle. In a case where e 7 for the imposition of a ma ity, after receiving the reply to no material against the char fter holding of a regular enquiry h the charge-sheeted employee, o impose some punishment on h ll choose to adopt the methodolo mplated under Rule 7, and sim charge-sheeted employee has b unishment. This is not the objec dures in the from of Rule 7 and R ese rules for holding disciplin ge-sheeted employee from arbitr

d by h a at it rson er.' e of ned e a ajor rge-y, it but him, ogy mply een ct of Rule nary

and unj prin

¶25adv inte she by

¶26issu for ado min

¶27Div Cha De Cou eve pen enq d capricious exercise of power just and illegal punishments. The e rights of such charge-sheeted nciples of natural justice. Therefore, in interpreting such ese rules, the courts have to ac vance the object of the rules r erpret in a manner which will eeted employees against arbitrar the disciplinary authority. Therefore, we respectfully agre e petitioners, wherein it has been ued for imposing a major pena the same in the Rule i.e. hold opted and completed even if it is nor punishment only. Therefore, we are unable to con vision Benches of this Court in and Sharma's case, and also in lhi High Court in I.D. Gupta's c urt in M.M. Dutta's case (cited en in a case where the chargesh nalty, the disciplinary authori quiry under the relevant Rule for

by disciplinary authority and fr ese Rules are intended to safegu employee and to comply with h beneficial provisions contained ccept the interpretation which w rather than to defeat it, and a l protect the rights of the char ry and capricious exercise of pow ee with the decisions relied upon n held that once the chargeshee alty, then the procedure prescrib lding a regular enquiry should s subsequently decided to impos ncur with the view expressed by n Samay Singh's case and Pu n the Single Bench decision of case, and that of the Calcutta H supra), in so far as they hold t heet is issued for imposing a ma ity can still, without holding r imposing a major penalty, imp

rom ard d in will also rge-wer n by et is bed d be se a ran High that ajor an

a m We Lal

¶28Rul hol can a enq

25.

In v Tribunal has no (Punishment an major penalty.

26.

The staff who were nursing office violating Rule 3 strangely charge intention of the anywhere in the date of incidenc creats a doubt at

27.

The inquiry report it minor penalty. To that extent, w e also hold that the decision of th l's case is not applicable to the fa We hold that once the charge-les 1987 for the imposition of lding of a regular departmental nnot by merely examining the re minor punishment without ho quiry. view of the above, we are of th ot taken into consideration the R nd Appeal) Rules, 1970 which i e record further shows that the aggressive in their verbal exp and behaved in irresponsible a 3 of the Government Employee es are framed against only six em e respondents towards petitione e record to involve only six nurs ce is 11.11.2016 and the compla t the intention of the respondents e petitioners were not even allo t has been stated that the petitio

we hold that they are not good la he Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sh facts of the cases our hand. -sheet is issued under Rule 7 of a major penalty, which envisa enquiry, the disciplinary autho eply to the chargesheet, inflict e olding a complete departmen he considered view that the learn Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Serv is to be followed before impos petitioner alongwith 40-50 nur pression, disturbed the working and in-disciplined manner there e (Conduct) Rules, 1966, but v mployees. This shows the mala f ers. No reasoning has been giv es out of 40-50 nurses. Further aint is dated 17.11.2016. This ag s. owed to lead evidence. Even in oner along with 40-50 nursing s

aw. hadi f the ages rity ven ntal ned vice sing rses g of eby very fide ven gain

intentionally aff office decorum Presenting Offic along with the p taken, whereas a

28.

A p justice have not present writ peti Administrative

08.11.2017 imp delinquent offic the appeals filed allowed.

29.

All

(SURESHWAR

JUDGE

September 18, 2 tripti

fected the work and conduct of whereas nothing has been men cer regarding not framing charg petitioners and why action again a perusal of the record shows tha perusal of the record further sh t been followed in the present ca itions. The same are allowed im Tribunal dated 3.12.2018/10. posing penalty of stoppage o cial with cumulative effect and d by the petitioners are set aside. l the pending applications, if any R THAKUR)

(S E

2024

f the office by crossing limit of ntioned in the inquiry report by ges against others who were th nst only 6 nursing staff out of 50 at 40-50 nursing staff was involv hows that the principles of natu ase. Therefore, we find merit in mpugned order passed by the Cen

01.2019 along with order da of three grade increments of order dated 01.08.2018 dismiss . The writ petitions are accordin y, also stand disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Speaking

here 0 is ved. ural ntral ated sing